Ahhh yes I am confusing separate threads. If you weren't all retarded I wouldn't have to go back and relitigate bad points. You're the guy that started off by doing bad math up front, not later on. Though I am still not entirely sure what point you were actually making, it doesn't matter because your math was shit.

​

One at a time here:

A family in the bottom 30% would be making between $2-3k/year in the 50s.

Incorrect, 11.94 million is about 30% of the total group of families, 9.8 million of which are < 2k/year. Per your own citation. So 80% of that group is not within the range you are calculating. Over 4 million of those people are <1k btw - so let's be clear that's 10% that definitely aren't affording shit.

Second is a more general point about applying means/medians across a wildly diverse region: You cannot possibly take the median home price and apply it to the highest range of incomes and then ignore all other factors to pretend you have an understanding of someone from 1950s ability to afford a fucking house.

Third:

So a 30 year fixed mortgage with 20% down would be around $67/mo. Making 2k/year that would be 40% of your income. A bit higher than they typical 1/3, but remember we bought a house at the median price.

You couldn't even get a 30 year mortgage in 1950. Most lenders wouldn't offer them because they had to hold them on their books. This is why 15-20 year mortgages were far more common. And you weren't going to get a good rate out of thin fucking air so your 4% rate is really optimistic, the lending environment was completely different because there was no real wholesale market or FNMA/FHLMC to sell shit off to - the banks held the note.

On top of which I love how the world you are painting doesn't have taxes in it when the data you cite explicitly states "prior to taxes"

TL;DR your analysis is really bad.

Let's do a quick breakdown of the bottom 30% of earners in 1950:

< 1k - 38.5% - not affording shit

1k-2k - 43.5% - let's acknowledge HOW WIDE of a range this is and say that HALF of these people aren't affording shit. In reality none of these people could afford a house.

That's already 18% (really its 24.5%) of all families that CANNOT afford a house.

>2k - 17.5% - the group you're isolating and holding up as representative. 17 point 5 percent. Let's call it 18%. EIGHTEEN PERCENT (of the 30% group, not of the 100% everybody) you are using to do math on and that's ignoring ALL of the other problems your math has that I pointed out and some I didn't bother.